GR 43833; (November, 1980) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-43833 November 28, 1980
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. SOTERO NAVARRETE Y LUCERO, defendant-appellant.
FACTS
Sotero Navarrete was charged before the Court of First Instance of Manila with the rape of his 15-year-old daughter, Elizabeth Navarrete, committed in the third week of August 1972. The information alleged that he used force, intimidation, and a sharp instrument to have carnal knowledge against her will. After trial, the court found him guilty and sentenced him to an indeterminate penalty of 12 years of prision mayor as minimum to 20 years of reclusion temporal as maximum, plus indemnity. The accused appealed to the Court of Appeals.
The Court of Appeals, in its decision dated May 3, 1976, affirmed the conviction but found that the proper penalty under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code was reclusion perpetua. Citing jurisdictional limits under the Judiciary Act, as it could not impose this penalty, it certified the entire record to the Supreme Court for final determination. The case was submitted to the Supreme Court on May 26, 1976.
ISSUE
The primary issue is whether the Supreme Court should assume jurisdiction over the certified case and impose the penalty of reclusion perpetua, despite a procedural irregularity in the certification process by the Court of Appeals.
RULING
The Supreme Court assumed jurisdiction and modified the penalty to reclusion perpetua. The Court acknowledged that the certification by the Court of Appeals did not comply with the procedural directive later established in People vs. Daniel (86 SCRA 511), which required the appellate court to render a judgment explicitly imposing reclusion perpetua before certification. However, since the present case was certified and submitted for decision in 1976, prior to the Daniel ruling in 1978, the Court applied the Daniel doctrine prospectively. To avoid unnecessary delay and uphold the accused’s right to a speedy trial, the Court decided the case on its merits rather than remanding it.
On the substantive merits, the Court found the appellant’s guilt proven beyond reasonable doubt. It rejected the defense’s scandalous allegations attempting to ascribe the act to societal permissiveness, warning counsel for his undignified language. The Court also clarified that while the prosecution evidence established multiple acts of rape, the appellant could only be convicted of the single crime charged in the information, in accordance with constitutional right to be informed of the accusation. The aggravating circumstance of relationship (father-daughter) under Article 15 of the Revised Penal Code was properly considered. Accordingly, the penalty was increased to reclusion perpetua, and the civil indemnity was raised to P12,000.00.